What is the test for ineffective assistance in a writ of habeas corpus case?

"An appellate court receiving [a petition for a writ of habeas corpus] evaluates it by asking whether, assuming the petition's factual allegations are true, the petitioner would be entitled to relief. [Citations.] If no prima facie case for relief is stated, the court will summarily deny the petition. If, however, the court finds the factual allegations, taken as true, establish a prima facie case for relief, the court will issue an [order to show cause (OSC)]. [Citations.] . . . Issuance of an OSC, therefore, indicates the issuing court's preliminary assessment that the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his factual allegations are proved." (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474-475.)

Defendant alleges in his habeas corpus petition that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. As articulated above, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must identify those acts or admissions made by his counsel that "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and must demonstrate prejudice, that is, that absent his counsel's acts or omissions there was a reasonable probability that the proceedings would have reached a different result. (People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 907.) In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a potential witness, it must be shown that "the testimony of the alleged additional defense witness was material, necessarily, or admissible, or that

Page 14

defense counsel did not exercise proper judgment in failing to call him [or her]." (People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690.)

b. Evidence Supporting Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus